Review of Melb Strategic Planning Feb2012v02

8/9/2019 Review of Melb Strategic Planning Feb2012v02

1/32

MANAGING MELBOURNE:REVIEW OF MELBOURNE

METROPOLITAN STRATEGICPLANNING

Lester Townsend, Strategic Planning Consultant

FEBRUARY 2012


2/32

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................

1.1 Sixty years of planning Melbourne..................................................................1.2 Wat can we learn fro! pre"ious plans#........................................................

2. ISTORY OF METROPOLITAN PLANNING IN MELBOURNE.....................

2.1 $n expanding !etropolis................................................................................2.2 Metropolitan planning strategies.....................................................................2.% &nderlying ai!s..............................................................................................

!. LESSONS FROM METROPOLITAN PLANNING..........................................

%.1 Connecting to 'ictoria.....................................................................................%.2 Pro(ecting growt............................................................................................%.% Saping te city..............................................................................................%.) *ecentralisation+ district centres, acti"ity centres and central acti"ityareas.....................................................................................................................%. -!ploy!ent..................................................................................................%. /ousing........................................................................................................

%..1 0lats, units and townouses..............................................................%..2 nner urban ousing..........................................................................%..% /ousing in acti"ity centres.................................................................

%. &rban renewal..............................................................................................%.3 /eigt, eritage and caracter......................................................................%.4 Transport in"est!ents...................................................................................

%.4.1 5oads and freeways..........................................................................%.4.2 5ail, Tra!s and 6uses......................................................................%.4.% 6i7es and wal7ing.............................................................................

%.18 9pen space..................................................................................................PREVIOUS STRATEGIES....................................................................................

Tis paper as been prepared by Lester Townsend in is role as Strategic PlanningConsultant to te Strategic Policy, 5esearc and 0orecasting *i"ision of te*epart!ent of Planning and Co!!unity *e"elop!ent :*PC*;. Te "iewsexpressed are is own and do not necessarily reflect tose of *PC* or te*epart!ent of Transport :*oT;. Te identified lessons fro! tis re"iew are notintended to be a co!preensi"e or definiti"e assess!ent of pre"ious plans, but areintended to assist in identifying te scope and approaces tat !ay be suitable inte de"elop!ent of a new !etropolitan planning strategy.

WORKING DRAFT PAGE I


3/32

L"st o# F"$%&es

0igure 1+ Te growing footprint of Melbourne....................................................

0igure 2+ Policies wit a !etropolitan i!pact.....................................................

0igure %+ 5egional context was explicitly addressed fro! 144onwards..............................................................................................

0igure )+ Canging population pro(ections.........................................................

0igure + Poto of transparent pages in 141 plan..........................................

0igure + $cti"ity Centres o"er ti!e.................................................................

0igure + Principal $cti"ity centres fro! 2882 plan :Melbourne2020 ;................................................................................................

0igure 3+ 148s flats were unpopular...............................................................

0igure 4+ Te 148s flat boo!.........................................................................

0igure 18+ Sce!atic for re"italising $cti"ity Centres fro!Melbourne 2030 ................................................................................

0igure 11+ Pre 1438 ideas about renewal ignored local contextand eritage......................................................................................

0igure 12+ 143) plan identifies ele!ents of inner Melbourne.............................

0igure 1%+ 0ro! 143) plan to reality, Soutban7...............................................

0igure 1)+ 144 plan for freeways :green; and rail :red;....................................

0igure 1+ 0ro! reser"ation to reality+ 143 reser"ation toconstructed freeway..........................................................................

0igure 1+ Cycling as grown in popularity........................................................

0igure 1+ 14) and 144 plans for open space................................................

WORKING DRAFT PAGE II


4/32

1. Int&o'%(t"on

n preparing te new !etropolitan planning strategy it is wort re"iewing pre"iousplans for Melbourne to see wat lessons we can draw.

Melbourne is a city wit a long istory of strategic planning. 6eginning wit 5obert/oddle.

Wile tere were no for!al strategic plans for te city until 1424, town planningideas, suc as te /oddle grid a"e influenced te layout of te Melbourne we 7nowtoday.

6y te early 1418s concerns about te dilapidated parts of te city pro!pted !a(orpublic in?uiries by te @oint Select Co!!ittee on te /ousing of te People in teMetropolis :141%A1); and a 5oyal Co!!ission in 141. Tese e"ents led to tede"elop!ent of Melbourne>s first strategic plan in 1424

Te 1424 plan of te Metropolitan Town Planning Co!!ission proposed a planningsce!e to pre"ent =!isuse> of land and protect property "alues, igligting trafficcongestion, te distribution of recreational open space and apaBard inter!inglingof land uses. Te plan was not i!ple!ented and it was only after te Second WorldWar, in te early 148s, tat te planning syste! as we 7now it today co!!enced.

Tis paper exa!ines planning policies for Melbourne since 14) and presents anu!ber of =lessons> tese are su!!arised in tis introduction. Te paper isstructured under a nu!ber of te!es+

Connecting to 'ictoria,

Pro(ecting growt,

Saping te city,

*ecentralisation+ district centres, acti"ity centres and central acti"ity

areas,

-!ploy!ent,

/ousing,

&rban renewal, Transport in"est!ents, and

9pen space.

1.1 S")t* *e+&s o# ,-+nn"n$ Me-o%&ne

Past plans for Melbourne a"e addressed a range of issues toug not all plansa"e addressed all te issues. Critical issues include+

identifying ow to strengten lin7s between Melbourne and regional

'ictoria,

pro(ecting population growt and proposing ways to !anage tat growt,

WORKING DRAFT PAGE 1


5/32

identifying areas for suburban expansion to !eet ousing and

e!ploy!ent needs,

identifying areas of en"iron!ental or landscape "alue to be preser"ed,

identifying acti"ity centres and setting a "ision for ow tey !igt be

acie"ed, identifying areas for urban consolidation, or renewal,

identifying te future transport networ7, and

identifying open space i!pro"e!ents.

n 14) Melbourne recognised te need for planning and prepared a co!preensi"eplan, coupled wit a proposed planning sce!e. Since te preparation of tat plan,Melbourne as+

acco!!odated o"er two !illion !ore people,

built a freeway syste!,

built te underground train loop, re"italiBed central Melbourne,

increased public open space, created sared trails along waterways and

created regional par7s,

built te arts centre, a new !useu!, sports and entertain!ent centre,

stadiu! at *oc7lands and te exibition centre,

identified and protected eritage buildings,

protected areas of natural "alue and landscape "alue,

built a networ7 of suburban sopping centres,

built Monas and Latrobe &ni"ersities,

built te To!son, Cardinia and Sugarloaf da!s.

Melbourne is recognised as one te worlds !ost li"eable cities, and is relati"elyprosperous. Loo7ing at ow pre"ious plans a"e !aintained li"eability can elpguide future tin7ing.

1.2 W/+t (+n e -e+&n #&o ,&e"o%s ,-+ns3

So!e planning approaces a"e been !ore successful tan oters. n trying todraw lessons fro! te past we !igt conclude+

Melbourne !ust be understood in its wider State context and !etropolitanstrategies !ust recognise te interaction of Melbourne wit regional'ictoria.

t is better to tin7 about planning for a proposed nu!ber of people, or a

proposed transport tas7, in te first instance and ten deciding wen tis!igt be acie"ed as a !eans of progra!!ing infrastructure.

Protecting en"iron!entally sensiti"e areas and areas of landscape beauty

as broad co!!unity support and were te green wedge boundary or&rban Drowt 6oundary follows onAteAground constraints or landscape"alues te boundary as endured.

Metropolitan planning as not been successful in identifying sufficient

de"elop!ent potential for (obs and retail in acti"ity centres. Te district



6/32

centre policy of te 1438s underesti!ated te a!ount of floor spacere?uired. $s a result, de"elop!ent too7 place outside of centres.

Past district centreEacti"ity centre policies a"e ad li!ited effect on

saping were retail floor space, and suburban (obs and ser"ices, a"ebeen located. Controls to force office de"elop!ent into centres did not

wor7.

State le"el ser"ices a"e been concei"ed of as =capital city functions> and

a"e re!ained fir!ly planted in inner Melbourne. Tey a"e not beenproposed for oter centres in Melbourne, or for tat !atter regionalcentres.

Pre"ious strategies a"e not de"eloped a policy fra!ewor7 to tac7le

e!ploy!ent and econo!ic de"elop!ent in a syste!atic way.

$ll proposals to =free up> te construction of !ediu! density or iger

density ousing in suburban locations on a one siBeAfitsAall approac a"ee"entually been defeated by public outcry, weter it was te 148s flatboo!, asAofArigt dual occupancies, or te Good Design Guide.

Planning !ust now consider ig rise suburban de"elop!ent. 6uilding

costs once constrained ig rise de"elop!ent in Melbourne to a fewselect locations. Fow tis for! of de"elop!ent is financially feasibleacross a far greater range of Melbourne suburbs.

/iger density ousing in and around acti"ity centres in establised and

new areas as beco!e accepted planning practice :toug it does notalways !eet wit co!!unity support;.

&rban renewal pro(ects a"e been successful were tey a"e been part

of a broader strategy of urban regeneration, and created an attracti"epublic real!.

Managing issues of eigt and caracter is an ongoing callenge.

$ long ter! plan based around !aintaining opportunities for future

transport pro(ects, tat can be realised wen needed, can a"e greatsuccess.

Public transport plans a"e been wea7 in identifying areas tat are well

ser"ed by public transport, and at identifying a long ter! public transport"ision.

Proposals to co"ert Melbourne>s rail syste! into a Metro style syste! is a

significant recent cange in tin7ing.

nterest in planning for bi7es and wal7ing is relati"ely recent, and pysical

i!pro"e!ents a"e lead to increases in te use of tese !odes.

9pen space planning as been part of !etropolitan planning fro! te

beginning and Melbourne>s open space networ7 as been graduallyexpanded and i!pro"ed, notably wit open space along waterways.

Oe&+-- -essons

Te o"erall lessons fro! a re"iew of pre"ious strategies !igt be+

Mo"e beyond te generic, and te =top down>.

Put !apped fra!ewor7s in te planning sce!e.

&se go"ern!ent in"est!ent or action as a catalyst.



7/32

2. "sto&* o# et&o,o-"t+n ,-+nn"n$ "n Me-o%&ne

2.1 An e),+n'"n$ et&o,o-"s

Melbourne was founded in 13% and was officially declared a city by Gueen 'ictoria in 13). *uring te 'ictorian gold rus of te 138s, it was transfor!ed into one ofte world


8/32

2882 Melbourne 28%8288 $ Plan for Melbournes Metropolitan!trateg) and subse?uent 1431 Metropolitan !trateg) #ple#entation encouraged de"elop!ent in existing areas. Te Metropolitan !trateg) sougt to concentrate ousing, transport, e!ploy!ent and co!!unityfacilities at igly accessible points. 0ollowing plans a"e repeated or

reinforced tese directions. n 143%, new district centre Bones encouragedoffice de"elop!ent in 1) centres and restricted it elsewere.

!ple!entation included $!end!ent 18 wic saw te introduction ofnew Bones and controls to te Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Sce!e.

144) reating rosperit): .i"torias apital it) oli") laid te pat for centralcity re"italisation. 5e"italisation of central Melbourne e!pasised urban?uality. Te plan identified renewal pro(ects and e!pasised urban ?ualityand place !a7ing.

2882 Melbourne 2030 ad a broadly si!ilar strategic trust to te preceding 28years but for te first ti!e ?uantified te tas7 of urban consolidation. talso introduced an &rban Drowt 6oundary :&D6;. Te plan was be



9/32

expressed in te policy section of =new for!at< planning sce!es basedon te 'ictoria Planning Pro"isions :'PP; and introduced progressi"elybetween 144 and 2888.

2884 Deli(ering Melbournes 4ewest !ustainable o##unities expanded te

&rban Drowt 6oundary and reser"ed land for te Regional Rail Link, 9uter Metropolitan 5ing :a road and train corridor;, and te land forgrassland reseres in !el"ourne#s $es%.

2.! Un'e&-*"n$ +"s

Loo7ing bac7 at te pre"ious plans for Melbourne it is clear tat te basic ai!s a"ebeen constant, toug expressed so!ewat differently, as eac plan adopted telanguage of its ti!e. $ll plans set out to+

i!pro"e te efficient operation of te city,

i!pro"e wat we would now call its li"eability, and

preser"e "alued en"iron!ental areas.

Te 14) plan, in 7eeping wit te ti!es, presented itself as a tecnical response toa series of =proble!s>+

ehind this lanning !"he#e lie three )ears of intensi(e resear"h andwor67 The oard does not "lai# to ha(e produ"ed a pana"ea for all thedefe"ts and wea6nesses of our "it)' but we do sa) that we ha(e #adean honest endea(our to gi(e Melbourne a pra"ti"al and worthwhile plan7t is a #eans to a #ore effi"ient and #ore orderl) "it) and is designed toser(e the publi" not be"o#e its #aster7 t offers what the planning staffand the oard "onsiders is the best solution of #an) pressing and "ostl) proble#s' and the safest shield against re"urren"e of these proble#s inthe future72

$ nu!ber of te identified proble!s were to be sol"ed by reference to wat wasta7ing place in $!erica, and te 14) plan as a nu!ber of potos of de"elop!entsin $!erica.

6y 141 concerns ad sifted sligtly to include te need to preser"e en"iron!ental"alues, as well as create an efficient city+

The published plans are the first step towards #a6ing the #ost ofeffi"ient and "o#patible use of land a(ailable' "hannelling urban

de(elop#ent into growth "orridors within eas) rea"h of open areas'#a6ing the best use of our eisting s)ste#s' "onser(ing our resour"es' preser(ing areas for the future and de(eloping in a wa) that #ini#isefuture "o##unit) "osts73

n 2882 concerns about te ?uality of life or =li"eability> were !ore fully expressed+

n the net 30 )ears' Melbourne will grow b) up to 1 #illion people and"onsolidate its reputation as one of the #ost li(eable' attra"ti(e and prosperous areas in the world for residents' business and (isitors7

2 1954 plan, page ii of Report fore$ord "& 'o(n ) 'essop )(airman of %(e Board* Alan + )roford, )(airman of %(e Board



10/32

The #ain thrust is to "ontinue to prote"t the li(eabilit) of establishedareas and to in"reasingl) "on"entrate #a9or "hange in strategi"rede(elop#ent sites7

I,-eent"n$ t/e ,-+ns

Part of te istory of !etropolitan planning is not si!ply identifying policy directionsfor Melbourne, but creating te statutory, !acinery of go"ern!ent or capital wor7sprogra! tools to i!ple!ent tose plans.

Te 14) and 141 plans bot lead to significant planning sce!e canges. Te2882 plan :Melbourne 2030 ; introduced te &rban Drowt 6oundary, cangedgreen wedge controls and introduced new state policy. 6y tis ti!e te new for!atplanning sce!es were !uc !ore policy dri"en and, so, Melbourne 2030 could begi"en effect witout too !any canges to Bones and o"erlays in planning sce!es.

Te introduction of te 'PP in te late 1448s, followed by te 2882 plan :Melbourne

2030 ; pa"ed te way for a !ore co!preensi"e approac to detailed planning. t isonly in recent ti!es tat tere a"e been explicit+

Drowt $rea 0ra!ewor7 Plans or Drowt Corridor Plans,

Precinct Structure Plans,

Structure Plans for $cti"ity Centres, and

Dreen Wedge Manage!ent Plans.



11/32

!. Lessons #&o et&o,o-"t+n ,-+nn"n$

$ study of pre"ious !etropolitan policies can sow were our current approacesa"e co!e fro!, and can sow us wat as wor7ed :and wat as failed to wor7; inte past.

$ll plans address a si!ilar range of issues, toug wit different e!pasis+

Connecting to 'ictoria,

Pro(ecting growt,

Saping te city,

*ecentralisation+ district centres, acti"ity centres and central acti"ity

areas, -!ploy!ent,

/ousing,

&rban renewal,

/eigt, eritage and caracter,

Transport in"est!ents,

9pen space.

Te canges between te plans reflect different strategic coices for acie"ing tebroad ob(ecti"es of efficiency, li"eability and en"iron!ental conser"ation, rater tan

canges in te ob(ecti"es te!sel"es. 0or exa!ple, in one era inner urban renewalis seen as best acie"ed by te de!olition of substandard ousing and building/ousing Co!!ission estates. n anoter, it is seen as best acie"ed by tepreser"ation and restoration of te existing ousing stoc7.

!.1 Conne(t"n$ to V"(to&"+

Te 143 plan was te first plan for Melbourne prepared by te State Do"ern!ent,as opposed to te Melbourne and Metropolitan 6oard of Wor7s, but it was only inte 144 plan, Li"ing Suburbs, tat te connection of Melbourne to regional 'ictoriawas explicitly addressed in !etropolitan strategy).

Te 144 plan pro"ided a sce!atic sowing Melbourne>s lin7s to regional centresand set out a range of explicit polices.

F"$%&e !: Re$"on+- (onte)t +s e),-"("t-* +''&esse' #&o 1445 on+&'s

Source: 1995 plan:Living Suburbs

Me-o%&ne %st e %n'e&stoo' "n "ts "'e& St+te (onte)t +n' et&o,o-"t+nst&+te$"es %st &e(o$n"se t/e "nte&+(t"on o# Me-o%&ne "t/ &e$"on+- V"(to&"+.

4 -% $as addressed in %(e 1992 Shaping Victoria’s Future



12/32

!.2 P&o6e(t"n$ $&ot/

Most pre"ious policies a"e been based on a future population, and a prediction ofwen tat population will be acie"ed.

$ll !etropolitan strategies a"e pro(ected population growt. So!e pro(ections a"ebeen !ore accurate tan oters, but all te pro(ections a"e been realised+ so!e alittle later tan anticipated, so!e a little earlier.

0igure ) sows te actual and pro(ected population of a nu!ber of past plans. Te14) plan underesti!ated growtH te 14) plan o"eresti!ated.

F"$%&e 7:C/+n$"n$ ,o,%-+t"on ,&o6e(t"ons

Source+ *PC* and rele"ant plans

Tere are two !ain i!plications of population pro(ections+ ow !uc land,

infrastructure and ser"ices will be re?uired wen te city reaces te pro(ected siBeHand ow ?uic7ly te land, infrastructure and ser"ices will need to be pro"ided.

$n inaccurate forecast !eans tat infrastructure spending !igt need to be steppedup to 7eep pace wit growt, or tat tere is a little !ore ti!e to deli"er pro(ects ifgrowt is less tan anticipated.

Planning for a large population increase in te 141 plan :e"en toug tis too7longer to be realised, as te wide a"ailability of te contracepti"e pill slowed growt;deli"ered ad"antages in pro"iding longer ter! certainty around infrastructuredeli"ery and allowed planning in te 1438s and 48s to concentrate on oter issues.t also allowed a longerAter! "iew of transport issues to be ta7en, identifying a

proposed freeway networ7 and introducing reser"es tat are still rele"ant )8 yearslater.

5ecognising te difficulty of identifying bot te population and te year it will beacie"ed, recent tin7ing as e!pasised te total population tat needs to beoused, for exa!ple =Melbourne 5 Million , rater tan a specific year suc asMelbourne in 28%8 :as done in te earlier Melbourne 2030 plan;.

It "s ette& to t/"n8 +o%t ,-+nn"n$ #o& + ,&o,ose' n%e& o# ,eo,-e9 o& +,&o,ose' t&+ns,o&t t+s89 "n t/e #"&st "nst+n(e +n' t/en 'e("'"n$ /en t/"s"$/t e +(/"ee' +s + e+ns o# ,&o$&+"n$ "n#&+st&%(t%&e.

!.! S/+,"n$ t/e ("t*

Te corridor plan and protection of de"elop!ent in te Jarra 5anges andMornington Peninsula were introduced in te 148s. Tey a"e re!ained anenduring feature of planning for Melbourne. Planning for growt based on detailedconsideration of a range of constraints continues to today.

n 14) Melbourne did not extend !uc beyond wat we would now call te innerand !iddle suburbs, wit so!e de"elop!ent along te existing train lines. Maps and of te 14) plan sow te existing and planned density patterns. Teselection of land for urban expansion considered+

te pro"ision of drainage,



13/32

utility ser"ices,

te cost of ser"icing and street construction in te basalt areas of te

nortAwest is greater, and

tat =people a"e a preference for te eastern and soutAeastern and

soutern suburbs>.

Te 14) plan reinforced te establised tendency of te city to grow to te souteast. Te 141 plan too7 te first co!preensi"e loo7 at te constraints tatsurrounded Melbourne. Te plan e"en ta7es te trouble to present te constraintson a series of o"erlapping transparent pages.

F"$%&e 5:P/oto o# t&+ns,+&ent ,+$es "n 141 ,-+n; so%&(e: P/oto * +%t/o&

Te 141 plan adopted a =corridor> approac to urban growt. Land between tecorridors was called =nonAurban>, and we a"e co!e to call te! green wedges:toug tese non urban areas are not wedged saped;. Te areas identified forconser"ation significance in tis plan a"e been enduring and fro! te basis of later restriction to growt. Six functions for te non urban land were identified+

conser"ation,

landscape interest,

extracti"e industry,

intensi"e agriculture,

general far!ing, and

public use and utilities.

Tese plans did not include te Mornington Peninsula, and te Jarra 'alley wasinitially a growt corridor. Te protection of te Peninsula and Jarra 'alley fro!suburban de"elop!ent was acie"ed in te State!ents of Planning Policy releasedin te years i!!ediately after te 141 plan.

Te sout east green wedge as been narrowed o"er te years as te corridor ascrept into te wedge and de"elop!ents suc as te golf course and ousing at S7yea"e been appro"ed. n te early 1448s substantial land was added to te west ofte Cranbourne corridor, narrowing te sout east green wedge.

Te green wedges were i!ple!ented troug land use Bones, wit land identifiedfor preser"ation placed in Bones suc as te Landscape nterest Kone, and land for

urban growt in te Corridor Kone.

Te 2882 plan :Melbourne 2030 ; introduced te concept of li!its to urbanexpansion, tat was for!alised troug te &rban Drowt 6oundary, wicexcluded landscape and conser"ation areas fro! urban de"elop!ent. t alsoexcluded areas tat ad in te past been identified as growt corridors, but included=possible future de"elop!ent> fronts !ore or less were te 141 plan ad identifiedcorridors.

$ny (urisdiction tat see7s to !eet te de!and for land by expanding its urban area!ust grow so!ewereH te approac in !ore densely settled parts of te world is to=leap frog> green belt areas and establis new settle!ents or encourage expansion

of towns away fro! te !ain centre. 6ecause Melbourne establised a corridor planexpansion was always en"isaged along te corridor.



14/32

Support for te en"iron!ental "alues of te green wedges as been !aintained inplans and is stronger today tan wen first introduced. Tose areas wit landscapeor en"iron!ental "alues a"e been !aintained as green wedges.

n 2884, Deli(ering Melbournes 4ewest !ustainable o##unities expanded te

urban growt boundary, and tere is now 23 s?uare 7ilo!etres witin te &rbanDrowt 6oundaryH enoug land to cater for a city of about ). !illion people if we!aintained te sa!e !ix of densities tat we ad in 288.

P&ote(t"n$ en"&onent+--* sens"t"e +&e+s +n' +&e+s o# -+n's(+,e e+%t* /+s&o+' (o%n"t* s%,,o&t +n' /e&e t/e $&een e'$e o%n'+&* o& U&+nG&ot/ Bo%n'+&* #o--os on


15/32

Lilydale. Tese centres were only identified in broad ter!s and district centre policywasn>t really introduced until te 1438s. n 1431 te Melbourne and Metropolitan6oard of Wor7s ad deter!ined tat+

The oard will en"ourage and fa"ilitate the de(elop#ent of designated#a9or a"ti(it) "entres spread strategi"all) throughout the #etropolitan

area 7

6y te ti!e district centre policy was introduced a nu!ber of free standing centresad been establised+

Cadstone opened in 148 as an open !all and in 14 te !all was

roofed o"er wit translucent fibreglass. t was built on te paddoc7s of teCon"ent of te Dood Seperd wic graBed cattle until te !id 148s.

Fortland opened in 14. $ new bridge o"er te *arebin Cree7 at

Murray 5oad was built to pro"ide access to te centre.

/igpoint was opened in 14 and was built on an old a ?uarry.

Te 2882 plan :Melbourne 2030 ; expanded te notion of acti"ity centres to gi"ete! a role in catering for residential de"elop!ent.

W/"(/ (ent&es3

So!e centres, unsurprisingly, a"e a long istory of recognition+ 6ox /ill,*andenong, 0ootscray, 0ran7ston and 5ingwood. 9ter centres are included fro!ti!e to ti!e to try to sift de"elop!ent and e!ploy!ent to new areas.

$ feature of acti"ity centres in Melbourne is te creation of new centres away fro!identified acti"ity centres. Planning policy as always been sligtly a!bi"alent to

tese centres on te one and, recognising teir siBe and role in te retailierarcy and, on te oter, recognising tat tese are essentially carAbased retailcentres, wit teir location dri"en !ore by land a"ailability tan by public transportaccess, e"en toug bus ser"ices a"e been pro"ided to tese centres.

Te "arious plans a"e also struggled wit ow to deal wit Melbourne>s soppingstrips :so!e 7ilo!etres long; in a teoretical fra!ewor7 tat e!pasises =centres>.0ro! ti!e to ti!e, Boning patterns or strategies a"e sougt to de"elop nodes alongte longer strips. 0igure identifies te acti"ity centres tat a"e been identified indifferent plans.

6 191 plan 9 page 69 $i%( referen/e %o lan 5 page 5* for lo/a%ion 191 plan page 5



16/32

F"$%&e =:A(t""t* Cent&es oe& t"e

S h a p i n g M e l b o u r n e ’ s

C i t i e s i n t h e S u b u r b s

L i v i n g s u b u r b s

M e l b o u r n e 2 0 3 0

T h e C A A s

1 9 5 4

1 9 7 1

1 9 8 1

1 9 8 7

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 5

2 2

2 9

Airport !est

"o# $ill"roa%&ea%o's

Ca&ber'ell (un)tion

*a+leigh

Cha%stone

Cheltenha&, Southlan%

Craigieburn

Coburg

Cranbourne

-an%enong

-on)aster $ill

.n%eavour $ills

.pping

Foots)ra/

Forrest $ill

Fran+ston

0len !averle/

0reensborough

1aringal

1e/sborough

Lil/%ale

Marib/rnong, $ighpoint

Melton

Mern%a

Mill 2ar+

MoorabbinMoonee 2on%s

3arre !arren, Fountain 0ate

2a+enha&

2rahran4South 5arra

2reston , $igh Street

2reston, 3orthlan%

6ing'oo%

Sunbur/

Sunshine

S/%enha&

!antirna South, 1no# )entral

!erribee

Source+ 5ele"ant plans



17/32

Fote+ Te C$$s are in addition to Principal and Ma(or $cti"ity Centres

F"$%&e :P&"n(",+- A(t""t* (ent&es #&o 2002 ,-+n >Melbourne 2020 ?. So%&(e: DPCD.

O%t o# (ent&e +n' ne (ent&es

n te 1438s planning controls were introduced to li!it te siBe of offices tat couldbe de"eloped outside of district centres. Tese controls were ulti!ately re!o"edbecause tere were si!ply not enoug de"elop!ent opportunities in te no!inatedacti"ity centres.

Tere as always been a tension in planning for co!!ercial and retail growtbetween a =sectorial approac> :ow !uc officeEretail space do we need and wereis tat de!and; and a =spatial approac> :ere are te proposed districtcentresEacti"ity centres and supply will be pro"ided in tose centres;. Metropolitanplanning as not been successful in balancing tese tensions and te district centre

policy of te 1438s si!ply underesti!ated te a!ount of floor space re?uired.

+&' o& -oose o%n'+&"es

$t different ti!es a lot of effort as gone into trying to define te boundaries ofcentres. t is clear tat so!e centres a"e grown o"er ti!e wile oters a"ere!ained static.

Po-*(ent&"( ("t*

Melbourne 5 Million adopted te concept of a =polycentric city> wit teno!ination of six Central $cti"ities *istricts in addition to Principal and Ma(or $cti"ity

Centres. t is fair to say, tat no district centre policy, owe"er fra!ed, as seriouslyproposed !o"ing =capital city functions> to one of te centres, for exa!ple,constructing a ca!pus of te Fational Dallery of 'ictoria in 0ran7ston as opposed tote central city.

Met&o,o-"t+n ,-+nn"n$ /+s not een s%((ess#%- "n "'ent"#*"n$ s%##"("ent'ee-o,ent ,otent"+- #o& 6os +n' &et+"- "n +(t""t* (ent&es. T/e '"st&"(t (ent&e,o-"(* o# t/e 14@0s %n'e&est"+te' t/e +o%nt o# #-oo& s,+(e &e%"&e'. As +&es%-t9 'ee-o,ent too8 ,-+(e o%ts"'e o# (ent&es.

P+st '"st&"(t (ent&e+(t""t* (ent&e ,o-"("es /+e /+' -""te' e##e(t on s/+,"n$/e&e &et+"- #-oo& s,+(e9 +n' s%%&+n 6os +n' se&"(es9 /+e een -o(+te'.

Cont&o-s to #o&(e o##"(e 'ee-o,ent "nto (ent&es '"' not o&8.

St+te -ee- se&"(es /+e een (on(e"e' o# +s (+,"t+- ("t* #%n(t"ons +n'/+e &e+"ne' #"&-* ,-+nte' "n "nne& Me-o%&ne. T/e* /+e not een,&o,ose' #o& ot/e& (ent&es "n Me-o%&ne9 o& #o& t/+t +tte& &e$"on+- (ent&es.

!.5 E,-o*ent

-!ploy!ent as been discussed in general ter!s in "arious plans but as seldo!!o"ed beyond a co!!entary on existing trends. Large areas a"e been identifiedfor industrial uses, wit potential off site effects in Werribee and *andenong.



18/32

Te identification of e!ploy!ent corridors in te 2883 plan :Melbourne 5 Million;is probably te first significant spatial policy for e!ploy!ent tat !o"es beyond landsupply for industrial uses.

P&e"o%s st&+te$"es /+e not 'ee-o,e' + ,o-"(* #&+eo&8 to t+(8-e

e,-o*ent +n' e(ono"( 'ee-o,ent "n + s*ste+t"( +*.

!.= o%s"n$

!.=.1 F-+ts9 %n"ts +n' ton/o%ses

Te 14) plan did not see a need to increase densities in establised areas. fanyting, it en"isaged a sligt decrease in urban density. t did, owe"er, introduce aresidential Boning regi!e tat pro"ided four le"els of density 5esidential $,5esidential 6, 5esidential C and 5esidential * catering for residential

de"elop!ent fro! inner urban terrace ouses to low density fringe de"elop!ent.

&ntil te 148s, flat de"elop!ent was co"ered by te &nifor! 6uilding 5egulations.Many of te flats built in te 148s did not re?uire a planning per!it. Te 141 planen"isaged =only li!ited increases in population and e!ploy!ent witin built upareas>. /owe"er it did note+

Flats and (illa-units "onstitute so#e %0 per"ent of all dwellings nowbeing ere"ted7

Tis figure is a result of te flat boo! of te 148s. Te boo! was sort li"ed, andwit te introduction of new residential design guidelines and public outcry o"er tepercei"ed ugliness of te flats, flat de"elop!ent lost its in"est!ent edge and new

building acti"ity "irtually ceased.

F"$%&e @:14=0s #-+ts e&e %n,o,%-+&

14!0s #-+ts 14=0s #-+ts

Source+ Potos by autor

Te 1431 plan expressed concern about te !is!atc between ousing stoc7 andouseold types and proposed dual occupancies, te rede"elop!ent of oldindustrial sites in te inner suburbs, and greater density and di"ersity in ousingde"elop!ent in outer areas. 6y 1441A42 !ediu! density de"elop!ents ad

decreased to only 12 percent of all new dwellings.

F"$%&e 4:T/e 14=0s #-+t oo. So%&(e: DPCD.

Te 1431 plan indentified areas were tere was a greater opportunity for ousingdi"ersity+

; these fa"tors show that the greatest housing e#phasis would need tobe gi(en generall) to the older established #iddle suburbs' notabl) inthe east and south east and the least e#phasis in the inner suburbs7

$t ti!es te desire for urban consolidation, or ousing pro"ision, as lead to afreeing up of te planning controls o"er !ediu! density ousing in existing areas.Tis freeing up as ta7en te for! of asAofArigt per!ission for dual occupancies



19/32

and standardised controls and policy approaces to !ediu! density ousing in='icCode>, and later te =Dood *esign Duide>. Tese approaces a"e !et witpublic outcry. Te introduction of 5esCode :Clause in te 'ictoria PlanningPro"isions; wic loo7s to policy to deter!ine location and neigborood caracterto sape design as reduced so!e of tese concerns.

A-- ,&o,os+-s to #&ee %, t/e (onst&%(t"on o# e'"% 'ens"t* o& /"$/e& 'ens"t*/o%s"n$ "n s%%&+n -o(+t"ons on + one s"e policy ai!ed atincreasing residential de"elop!ent in te Melbourne city centre, including te

central business district and St ilda 5oad to %888 people. Te policy re"iewedcertain building regulations and pro"ided incenti"es for people li"ing in te centralarea. *e"elop!ent saw te con"ersion of unoccupied lower grade office buildingswic because of a glut of office space ad no real prospect of being used asofficesH total office "acancy rates were at teir igest rates in decades.

n te early to !id 1448s iger density and ig rise de"elop!ent began to feature!ore pro!inently in Melbourne de"elop!ent. Wile tere as always been a li!iteda!ount of ig rise buildings in Melbourne, !ost notably along te St ildaforesore, along St ilda 5oad and at *oncaster /ill, te !id 1448s saw ig risede"elop!ent spread to oter areas of inner Melbourne and ten into !iddleAringlocations. Wile planning policies broadly supported tis spread, actual construction

was !ade possible due to rises in te price of ousing and decreases in te cost ofconstruction as a result of canges in construction !etodology .

P-+nn"n$ %st no (ons"'e& /"$/ &"se s%%&+n 'ee-o,ent. B%"-'"n$ (ostson(e (onst&+"ne' /"$/ &"se 'ee-o,ent "n Me-o%&ne to + #e se-e(t-o(+t"ons. No t/"s #o& o# 'ee-o,ent "s #"n+n("+--* #e+s"-e +(&oss + #+&$&e+te& &+n$e o# Me-o%&ne s%%&s.

epar%men% of -nfras%ru/%ure, 199 , From Doughnut City to Café Society, page *



20/32

!.=.! o%s"n$ "n +(t""t* (ent&es

Te 2882 plan , Melbourne 2030 , introduced te notion tat acti"ity centres were alocation for iger density ousing up until tis point acti"ity centres ad aco!!ercial focus. Certainly tere was discussion in te 1438s about =sop top

ousing> but tis for! of de"elop!ent did not attract !uc de"eloper interest. Tiscanged wit te release of te 2882 plan.

n so!e ways te residential interest in acti"ity centres was an extension of teinterest in residential de"elop!ent in central Melbourne. Te ai! of increasingresidential de"elop!ent in acti"ity centres was twofold+

it was seen as a way of elping !a7e car based acti"ity centres =wor7

better>, and

it was a good location for ousing to !eet te need for infill for infill

ousing in establised suburbs.

"$/e& 'ens"t* /o%s"n$ "n +n' +&o%n' +(t""t* (ent&es "n est+-"s/e' +n' ne+&e+s /+s e(oe +((e,te' ,-+nn"n$ ,&+(t"(e >t/o%$/ "t 'oes not +-+*s eet"t/ (o%n"t* s%,,o&t?.

F"$%&e 10: S(/e+t"( #o& &e"t+-"s"n$ A(t""t* Cent&es #&o Melbourne 2030. So%&(e:DPCD.

!. U&+n &ene+-

Part of planning for Melbourne as included identifying areas tat need to be

=renewed>. Te approac to renewal as sifted significantly fro! 14) to today.Metropolitan strategies a"e generally not always identified urban renewal pro(ects,but plans for Central Melbourne a"e.

&rban renewal began :badly; wit te de"elop!ent of ig rise ousing co!!issionestates in inner Melbourne. Te ousing co!!ission ig rise ad its genesis in te14) plan+

roper rede(elop#ent of a reall) de"adent area rarel)' if e(er' "o#esabout' e"ept in a""ordan"e with a "o#prehensi(e plan7$

Tis renewal acti"ity was typical of te large scale pro(ects proposed. 0igure 11 sows te 14) plan>s "ision for te land around Parlia!ent /ouse, togeter wit alater proposal for te Gueen 'ictoria Mar7et.

F"$%&e 11: P&e 14@0 "'e+s +o%t &ene+- "$no&e' -o(+- (onte)t +n' /e&"t+$e

P+&-"+ent ,&e("n(t &e'ee-o,ent #&o 1457,-+n

14@ ,-+n #o& V"(to&"+ M+&8et "$no&e' -o(+-(onte)t

So%&(e: 1457 ,-+n

Since te 1438s te need for concentrated efforts at urban renewal as beenrecognised and a nu!ber of significant renewal pro(ects underta7en, pri!arily

related to surplus go"ern!ent land in inner Melbourne. Tere was a critical sift

9 1954 plan, page *



21/32

occurred in te way tese pro(ects were planned wit a !uc greater e!pasis onte creating attracti"e li"eable places.

Te 143) entral Melbourne: Fra#ewor6 for the Future indentified a nu!ber ofopportunities tat a"e since been realised+

=La Trobe Central> wic lead to te de"elop!ent of Melbourne Centraland te G' Centre,

Station Pier,

Soutban7, and

@oli!ont+ 0ederation S?uare, te Melbourne Par7 Tennis Centre and

ousing on relocated rail yards.

9ter renewal pro(ects a"e included+

*oc7lands,

Lync>s bridge, and

$rundel.

F"$%&e 12: 14@7 ,-+n "'ent"#"es e-eents o# "nne& Me-o%&ne. So%&(e: 14@7 Cent&+-Me-o%&ne: F&+eo&8 #o& t/e F%t%&e.

Te 144) reating rosperit): .i"torias apital it) oli") built on te entralMelbourne Fra#ewor6 and introduced a nu!ber of te pro(ects and ideas tat a"etransfor!ed Central Melbourne in last 28 years or so, including+

*e!olising te Das and 0uel buildings and building 0ederation S?uare,

6uilding te Melbourne -xibition Centre at Soutban7,

Co!pleting te Melbourne Casino,

-xtending te Fational Tennis Centre,

Co!!encing rede"elop!ent of *oc7lands,

6uilding a new !useu! in Carlton,

-xpanding te Postcode %888 pro(ect to encourage central city residential

de"elop!ent,

Pro"iding new ousing in te *oc7lands and at Lync>s 6ridge,

5estoring te 9ld Custo!s /ouse :now te !!igration Museu!;,

5estoring te 5egent Teatre and opening it to te public, and

Creating new open space in te rede"elop!ent of te @oli!ont 5ail yards:6irrarung Marr;.

Peraps te !ost surprising lesson fro! a re"iew of pre"ious planning strategies isow effecti"e go"ern!ent in"est!ent was at transfor!ing inner Melbourne, lea"inga lasting legacy and elping Melbourne !aintain its reputation for li"eability, e"en ifte larger scale pro(ects suc as *oc7lands are yet to win public praise.

U&+n &ene+- ,&o6e(ts /+e een s%((ess#%- /e&e t/e* /+e een ,+&t o# +&o+'e& st&+te$* o# %&+n &e$ene&+t"on9 +n' (&e+te' +n +tt&+(t"e ,%-"( &e+-.

F"$%&e 1!: F&o 14@7 ,-+n to &e+-"t*9 So%t/+n8



22/32

Source: 1994Central Melbourne: Framework for the Future, photo by author

!.@ e"$/t9 /e&"t+$e +n' (/+&+(te&

/eigt and caracter probably account for !ost of te dispute in planning !atters.

/istorically part of te co!!unity concern wit ig rise de"elop!ent related not (ust to its eigt, but to te de!olition of eritage buildings, particularly in te C6*,and te design of buildings tat ignored teir context.

Today eritage is protected, and toug tere is te occasional contro"ersy, tere isnoting li7e te wolesale destruction of eritage fabric Melbourne witnessed in te148s and 148s.

Te 1438 de"elop!ent guidelines for te City of Melbourne pro"ide an insigt intote concerns o"er te for! of de"elop!ent proposed at te ti!e. Concerns

included setbac7s of buildings fro! te street witout acti"e frontages and designtat did not recognise its context.

6efore te !id 148 eigt controls were introduced as part of building safetyconcernsH fire ladders only reaced so far and tis set a )8 !etre li!it for te city.Wit canges in tecnology, building could be taller and te 143 $C /ouse on tecorner of $lbert and Ficolson Street, at 28 storeys, bro7e troug te pre"iousli!its.

n te suburbs land was ceap and te additional costs of building a second storeywere relati"ely expensi"e. $ ousing stoc7 of single storey de"elop!ent de"elopedand so!e councils, e"en into te !id 1448s ad =policies> against twoAstorey

de"elop!ent.

Fone of te pre"ious strategies establised a syste!atic approac to eigt li!itsacross Melbourne.

M+n+$"n$ "ss%es o# /e"$/t +n' (/+&+(te& "s +n on$o"n$ (/+--en$e.

!.4 T&+ns,o&t "nestents

!.4.1 Ro+'s +n' #&ee+*s

Metropolitan strategies since 14) a"e identified te need for a freeway networ7and proposed routes. Te networ7 identified in 144 as endured :wit so!e of te!ore contro"ersial inner urban freeways re!o"ed; and as been graduallyi!ple!ented. Tere as been no si!ilar enduring plan for public transport.

F"$%&e 17: 14=4 ,-+n #o& #&ee+*s >$&een? +n' &+"- >&e'?

Source+ 144 Melbourne Transportation !tud)

Te construction of freeways was not witout contro"ersy and te opening of te

-astern 0reeway :te 014; was !et wit public protest and during Fo"e!ber 14protesters bloc7aded te opening of te freeway into $lexandra Parade inCollingwood.



23/32

*espite te contro"ersy, were reser"ations a"e been included in te planningsce!e tey a"e !ade subse?uent construction possible. Te lesson fro! tis!ay be tat a long ter! plan :rater tan a list of capital pro(ects; as te ability toendure and sape urban for! o"er !any decades.

F"$%&e 15: F&o &ese&+t"on to &e+-"t*: 14=@ &ese&+t"on to (onst&%(te' #&ee+*

Source+ www.land."ic.go".au

A -on$ te& ,-+n +se' +&o%n' +"nt+"n"n$ o,,o&t%n"t"es #o& #%t%&e t&+ns,o&t,&o6e(ts9 t/+t (+n e &e+-"se' /en nee'e'9 (+n /+e $&e+t s%((ess.

!.4.2 R+"-9 T&+s +n' B%ses

Melbourne rail networ7 was establised early in te settle!ent of 'ictoria andMelbourne. Te 144 Melbourne Transportation !tud) reco!!ended a nu!ber of

rail i!pro"e!ents including te City Loop.

0unding of te pro(ect was troug debentures, wit te State Do"ern!ent paying8 per cent of te cost, wile a special city le"y fro! 14% was to fund tere!ainder. Te le"y was to last for % years, but was ended in 144. Tunnelingwor7s under te city streets co!!enced in @une 142, and te Loop was openedgradually between 1431 and 143.

Te 1438 .i"torian Transport !tud) :te Lonie 5eport;, studied freigt andpassenger transport witin 'ictoria. Tis plan reco!!ended te closing of a nu!ber of train and tra! lines. Te effort in public transport planning and co!!unity interestin te 1438s was about 7eeping ser"ices openH tere was no sense tat patronage!igt increase to te degree tat new ser"ices would be needed.

Melbourne 2030 proposed a nu!ber of networ7 i!pro"e!ents, and a nu!ber oftransport plans flowed fro! Melbourne 2030 +

Managing Aur Transport hoi"es,

Bin6ing Melbourne Metropolitan Transport lan+

3 S!art buses :si!ilar in concept to te 1433 Met lan;,

3 Tird trac7 between *andenong and Caulfield,

3 5ede"elop!ent of Fort Melbourne Station,

3 Signalling and trac7 i!pro"e!ents to o"erco!e capacity constraints,

3 Construction of -astlin7.

Te 2883 .i"torian Transport lan proposed an a!bitious progra! of wor7s. t is fair to say tat none of tese plans sets out an ulti!ate "ision for te public transportnetwor7 in te sa!e way tat te 144 plan set out a "ision for te freeway networ7.Te 2883 plan introduced te significant proposal to cange Melbourne>s rail syste!into a Metro style syste!.

Te current State Planning Policy 0ra!ewor7 :SPP0; identifies te =Principal PublicTransport Fetwor7>, a concept articulated in Melbourne 2030 . Te policies in teSPP0 do not distinguis between actual ser"ices and proposed ser"ices and so do

not distinguis between te le"els of ser"ice or connecti"ity of te routes it identifies:or for tat !atter weter tere is a current ser"ice;. Te policies treat an outer



24/32

suburban road wit a 28 !inute bus ser"ice tat stops at p! as te sa!e as Stilda 5oad, one of te busiest tra! routes in te world.

P%-"( t&+ns,o&t ,-+ns /+e een e+8 "n "'ent"#*"n$ +&e+s t/+t +&e e--se&e' * ,%-"( t&+ns,o&t9 +n' +t "'ent"#*"n$ + -on$ te& ,%-"( t&+ns,o&t

"s"on.

P&o,os+-s to (oe&t Me-o%&nes &+"- s*ste "nto + Met&o st*-e s*ste "s +s"$n"#"(+nt &e(ent (/+n$e "n t/"n8"n$.

!.4.! B"8es +n' +-8"n$

Wile bi7es and wal7ing a"e featured as part of open space planning teir role asan e"eryday transport !ode as been !ore recent wit te gradual i!pro"e!ent ofbicycle facilities, particularly in te inner suburbs. n te late 1438s a bicycleco!!uter trip down Canning Street could be !ade witout seeing anoter cyclistH

tis is ardly te case today.

F"$%&e 1=: C*(-"n$ /+s $&on "n ,o,%-+&"t*

Source+ Poto by autor

&ntil 2882, plans did not address bicycles or wal7ing as a transport !ode.

Inte&est "n ,-+nn"n$ #o& "8es +n' +-8"n$ "s &e-+t"e-* &e(ent9 +n' ,/*s"(+-",&oeents /+e -e+' to "n(&e+ses "n t/e %se o# t/ese o'es.

!.10 O,en s,+(ePlanning for open space as been a feature of all plans since 14). Tere is anenduring legacy of identifying, protecting and ac?uiring regional open space as partof !etropolitan strategies.

Te 141 plan, for exa!ple, records te proposal for te *andenong 'alleyPar7lands, a series of regionally significant reser"es extending 18 7! along te*andenong Cree7 fro! 'er!ont Sout to Weelers /ill. Te Par7lands co"er anarea of 1,%8 ectares, and a"e been progressi"ely de"eloped as regional openspace since te initial reser"ation of land in 14%18. Fot all te par7land as beenpublicly ac?uired to date.

$ significant cange as been te creation of te !etropolitan trail networ7 and tede"elop!ent of waterways as i!portant open space corridors.

n Marc 1438 The *ge newspaper started a ca!paign for te Lower Jarra 5i"er+NDi"e te Jarra a goO. Te ca!paign !eant two tings+ gi"e te ri"er its cance byrestoring it, and go and try it for yourself. Te ca!paign was adopted by tego"ern!ent of te day and began te process of i!pro"ing te ?uality of te Jarra5i"er.

Te sared pat networ7 along waterways and railway reser"es dates fro! te !id1438s. !portant lin7s were de"eloped in te 1448s wit te nner Circle 5ailway

10 (e Dandenong Valley Parlands Future Directions Plan 2006



25/32

de"eloped in te early 1448s as par7land, and te $nni"ersary Trail along te oldouter circle railway line opened in 1441.

F"$%&e 1: 1457 +n' 1445 ,-+ns #o& o,en s,+(e.

Source+ 14) plan, 144 plan

Te 144 plan set out te policy of =de"eloping an open space networ7 of par7s,trails, bicycle pats, waterways and abitat corridors trougout te !etropolitanregion>. Tis included proposed open space along te Jarra 5i"er upstrea! fro!/eidelberg. Muc, but not all of tis open space as now been ac?uired.

Te 2882 plan :Melbourne 2030 ; reinforced past plans and identified new par7s+

Werribee 5i"er 5egional Par7,

Werribee Townsip 5egional Par7,

ororoit Cree7 5egional Par7, Merri Cree7 5egional Par7,

Melton Townsip 5egional Par7, and

Cranbourne 5egional Par7.

Tere as been an enduring legacy of !etropolitan strategies identifying andac?uiring new par7land o"er ti!e. Tis is not to play down plan te fact tat concernis raised fro! ti!e to ti!e about te percei"ed erosion of existing areas of openspace. n inner and !iddle Melbourne a nu!ber of land fills a"e been con"erted toopen space, for exa!ple at $ll Fations Par7 in Fortcote.

Bin6ing eople C !pa"es, a plan for Melbourne>s open space :2882; identified a=Metropolitan Trails Fetwor7> of 1288 7! of sared trails creating a lin7 betweenMelbourne>s recreational precincts, open space, public transport and local trails.Currently about 88 7! of offAroad trails are co!plete. Tis plan infor!ed teregional open space networ7 in Melbourne 2030 .

O,en s,+(e ,-+nn"n$ /+s een ,+&t o# et&o,o-"t+n ,-+nn"n$ #&o t/ee$"nn"n$ +n' Me-o%&nes o,en s,+(e neto&8 /+s een $&+'%+--* e),+n'e'+n' ",&oe'9 not+-* "t/ o,en s,+(e +-on$ +te&+*s.



26/32

P&e"o%s st&+te$"es

1929 Metropolitan Town Planning Commission

Plan of General Development

Proposes a planning sce!e to pre"ent =!isuse> of land and protect property"alues, igligting traffic congestion, te distribution of recreational open spaceand apaBard inter!ingling of land uses.

1954 Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works

Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Scheme Report, Surveys and Analysis

0irst co!preensi"e planning sce!e for te !etropolitan area, prepared by teMelbourne and Metropolitan 6oard of Wor7s :MM6W;. ntroduces te concept ofdistrict business centres and focuses !a(or retail acti"ity on designated centres onte public transport syste! tat also pro"ide central locations for ousing, transport,e!ploy!ent and co!!unity acti"ity.

$ddresses+ Te siBe of te future city, decentralisation and ci"il defence, ousingrede"elop!ent and land subdi"ision, industry and its needs, Central 6usinessCentres, suburban sopping, education and culture, open space and recreation,oter co!!unity ser"ices, road co!!unication syste!, public transport, centralbusiness area

t planned for a population of 2. !illion in te 1448s. t designated iger densityBones for te inner suburbs, lower density Bones for !iddle and outer suburbs :sucas 0ootscray, Preston and 6ox /ill; and rural Bones for !any areas tat a"e nowbeco!e suburbs. Te plan sows te beginnings of te de"elop!ent of tecorridors tat we 7now today.

t also proposed a !a(or open space networ7 along ri"ers and cree7s. t proposedfi"e district centres 0ootscray, Preston, 6ox /ill, Moorabbin and *andenong. Tepolicy at te ti!e said =Tey will offer to residents of te locality !any of te facilitiesof te central city area under !ore attracti"e conditions nearer to teir o!es>.

1967 Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works (MMBW)

The Future Growth of Melbourne

$ddresses+ Te Present Pattern, Te Sape and Fature of Melbourne,5ede"elop!ent, Few *e"elop!ent, 9utward Drowt $lternati"es, *esirable 0or!of Drowt, Te $d!inistration of Planning in Melbourne, Suggested Planning5egion and 0inance.

Pro(ects trends for urban growt for Melbourne loo7ing at scenarios, desired growtof Melbourne and ow far te !etropolitan area will extend. Te scenarios includeco!binations of growt corridors, wit pro"ision for green wedges, along wit

possibilities of satellite cities and patterns for pro(ected sprawl and consolidation.



27/32

1968 Town and Country Planning Board

Future Shape of Melbourne

ndependent of te Melbourne and Metropolitan 6oard of Wor7s :MM6W; te Townand Country Planning 6oard reinforced te corridor approac and reco!!ended teestablis!ent of satellite towns at Melton and Sunbury.

Tis approac was endorsed by te ten Do"ern!ent.

1969 Metropolitan Transportation Committee

Melbourne Transportation Study

Te plan reco!!ended 18 7ilo!etres of freeway for !etropolitan Melbourne, aswell as extensi"e rail wor7s, including te city underground loop and two new linesto *oncaster and Monas &ni"ersity.

*espite te !a(ority of te printed !aterial being de"oted to nonAcar transport, 3per cent of te pro(ected budget was de"oted to roads and par7ing, wit only 1) percent to oter for!s of transport.


Statement of Planning Policy No 1 - Westernport

Westernport be planned pri!arily as a specialised port and ea"y industrialco!plex.


Statement of Planning Policy No 2 – Mornington Peninsula

ntroduced policies to protect areas of natural beauty and conser"ation ofi!portance to te east and sout of te !etropolitan area beyond te areasad!inistered by te Melbourne and Metropolitan 6oard of Wor7s.

nstru!ental in setting te future planning directions for tis area and establising aspecial regional planning autority.


Statement of Planning Policy No 3 – Dandenong Ranges

ntroduced polices to protect areas of natural beauty and conser"ation i!portance inte *andenong 5anges. nstru!ental in setting future planning directions for tisarea and te establis!ent of a special regional planning autority.


Statement of Planning Policy No 4 – River Yarra

ntroduced policies to protect tis significant pysical feature of Melbourne as a!a(or social and conser"ation attribute for te city as a wole. Te area east ofWarrandyte is identified was a potential water catc!ent.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Loophttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doncaster,_Victoriahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_Loophttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doncaster,_Victoriahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University


28/32


Planning Policies for the Melbourne Metropolitan Region

Introduced long-term conservation and development policies through

growth corridor and green wedge principles, and contains outward growthto a limited number of areas on the edge of the city.


Statement of Planning Policy No 7 – Geelong

Deelong region to be planned to acco!!odate a greatly increased sare of teexpected growt.


Statement of Planning Policy No 8 – Macedon Ranges and surrounds

See7s to protect te "alues of te ranges.


Statement of Planning Policy No 1 – Westernport (As varied)

SPP1 was "aried to preser"e te opportunities for selected port and industrialpurposes and also protect te area for conser"ation and recreation purposes. $!ore balanced approac following a !a(or en"iron!ental study.

1980 Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Metropolitan Strategy


Metropolitan Strategy Implementation

ntended to de"elop Melbourne and increase di"ersity, dyna!ics and to create !oreinterest a!ongst te co!!unity as Melbourne experienced cange, drawing onparticipation fro! !unicipalities to create teir local de"elop!ent sce!es.

6uilding on pre"ious strategies, it outlines and exa!ines existing policy and le"els to

wic cange as to be !ade to deal wit canging econo!ic conditions,population trends, e!ploy!ent opportunities, energy costs :not consu!ption;, publicin"est!ent, trends in co!!erce and industry, recreation and co!!unity lifestyles.

t encourages de"elop!ent in existing areas, and concentrates ousing, transport,e!ploy!ent and co!!unity facilities at igly accessible points.


New District Centres policy and zones

-ncourages office de"elop!ent in 1) centres and restricts it elsewere.



29/32

1984 State Government Victoria

Central Melbourne: Framework for the Future

$ddresses+ -cono!ic Strategy, Planning Context, -n"iron!ental 9b(ecti"es, Social9b(ecti"es, $cti"ities and Land, Transport nfrastructure, Pysical -n"iron!ent,Supply and *e!and, 5elationsip wit Pri"ate Sector, Monitoring, $ction areas,-n"iron!ental !pro"e!ent Progra!s, !pact of *e"elop!ent Proposals andProgra! and 6udget.

Tis docu!ent sets out strategies and policies for a decade. 0ocusing pri!arily onte Central 6usiness *istrict of Melbourne and te direction of co!!ercial andecono!ic growt and ow land use planning can elp create a !ore prosperous citywile loo7ing into issues of public transport, en"iron!ent and necessaryinfrastructure tat will !ould te city into areas of acti"ity and "arious groupings ofuses.

1987 State Government VictoriaShaping Melbourne’s Future

Intended as a guide to development for the following decade, the State

Government at the time created this policy to determine the form and

direction of growth, facilities and infrastructure outlay, economic and

employment opportunities - with a strong emphasis on private sector

involvement in co-ordinating urban change in the future.

Reinforced the thrust of the 1980 plan.


Metropolitan Activity Centres

$ policy state!ent setting out te go"ern!ent>s re"ised policies for acti"ity centres,retailing and office de"elop!ent and describes new policies for tecnologyprecincts.


Plenty Valley Strategic Plan

Preparation of strategic planning directions and policies for te Plenty 'alley.


South East and Werribee Growth Area Plans

Preparation of strategic planning directions and policies for tese growt areas.


Cities in the Suburbs

$ policy state!ent tat confir!s te role of central Melbourne and re"ises tedesignation of tree types of centres to two strategic district centres and



30/32

co!!unity district centres. 5ecognises role of free standing centres. /ousingdensities encouraged.

1995 Victorian State Government

Living Suburbs

$ddresses+ 6usiness en"iron!ent conduci"e to sustainable longAter! econo!icgrowt, building Melbourne>s strengts as an international transport, production andco!!unications ub, strengtening regional lin7s, enancing Melbourne>sen"iron!ent and li"eability, and !anaging infrastructure and urban de"elop!ent.

Tis policy docu!ent focused on relationsips between central city, suburbanMelbourne and ad(acent regional areas, pro"iding a fra!ewor7 for integrated!etropolitan de"elop!ent. Te !ain points were econo!ic foundations,encouraging growt in ser"iced corridors and satellite cities, wile building upser"ices pro"ided at !a(or acti"ity centres and encouraging te pri"ate sector to

pro"ide !uc needed infrastructure.

5elaxed !etropolitanAwide planning direction and controls, for exa!ple, on greenwedge boundaries and te ierarcy of acti"ity centres, and de"ol"es !ucdecisionA!a7ing to local le"el or on a caseAbyAcase basis.

1998 Department of Infrastructure

From Doughnut City to Café Society

$ddresses+ Trends in residential de"elop!ent, current population le"els, populationtrends, ouseold population trends, pro(ected growt, de!ograpic trends andouseold expenditure.

&sing statistical infor!ation fro! $6S census data and population studies, Fro#Doughnut it) to af !o"iet) loo7ed into Melbourne>s future trends in populationgrowt and settle!ent trends in outer ring de"eloping suburbs. t identified econo!icand en"iron!ental callenges and opportunities for Melbourne as sprawl increasesand loo7s. t also loo7ed at ousing solutions and population de!ograpics.

1999: Department of Infrastructure

Implementation, Integration and Innovation: a better future for Victorians

$ddresses+ 'ision beco!es reality, stri7ing a ealty balance, land use, te sape

of 'ictoria, local go"ern!ent for te next !illenniu!, accessibility and te Planning $d"isory Council.

$ progra! particularly based on planning syste! refor!. Loo7ing at te fulli!ple!entation of !a(or de"elop!ent pro(ects, placing a strong e!pasis onintegrating partnersip approaces troug inno"ation. Tis is done troug te newfor!at planning sce!e and lists details of grants, co!!unity consultation,!onitoring and re"iew !ecanis!s as well as planning panels and appealprocesses.

2002 Department of Infrastructure

Melbourne 2030



31/32

Scope+ $ !ore co!pact city, better !anage!ent of !etropolitan growt, networ7swit regional cities, a !ore prosperous city, a great place to be, a fairer city, agreener city, better transport lin7s, better planning decisions, careful !anage!ent.

Te core concept was to transfor! te !etropolis fro! a single centre structure

do!inated by te C6*, into a =networ7 of cities>. Te suburbs would a"e !a(orcentres of teir own, featuring all of te acti"ities tat are nor!ally associated wit=downtown>.

t reinforced te need for urban consolidation, better use of infrastructure and!anages outward urban growt and te protection of green wedges by introductionof an urban growt boundary.

2005 Department of Sustainability and Environment

A plan for Melbourne’s growth areas9utlined plans to !anage outward growt in eac growt area following te releaseof Melbourne 2030 and te ad"ice fro! separate Co!!ittees for S!art Drowt. t isa !ore strategic approac to de"elop!ent in Melbourne>s growt areas. Te planco"ers residential, co!!ercial and industrial land use, par7s and open spaces, tegood design of new co!!unities and te staging of land release so ser"ices andinfrastructure can be pro"ided in a !ore ti!ely way to new co!!unities.

t ai!s to ensure an ade?uate supply of land to protect ousing affordability andensure Melbourne retains its co!petiti"e edge o"er 6risbane and Sydney.

2008 Department of Sustainability and Environment Melbourne 2030: a planning update – Melbourne @ 5 million

$n update of Melbourne 2030 . ntegrated wit release of te 'ictorian TransportPlan. Melbourne>s growt callenge, !o"ing to a !ultiAcentre city, strategicexpansion of Melbourne, getting te rigt infrastructure in place, regional 'ictoria.

Plans for re"ised population and settle!ent pro(ections on wic Melbourne 28%8was based and considers te i!plications of tese new pro(ections for te futuresape of Melbourne. Te update as a strong focus on building (obs and ser"ices insix 7ey suburban Central $cti"ities *istricts and e!ploy!ent corridors. Te update

also outlines te need to direct future growt to te nort and west of Melbourne andto in"estigate ow to extend Melbourne>s growt areas.

2008 Victorian State Government

The Victoria Transport Plan

$ capital wor7s based plan for all !odes of transport tat identifies a nu!ber of!a(or road and rail pro(ects. ntroduces te concept of transfor!ing Melbourne>s railsyste! into a Metro style syste!.

2009 Department of Planning and Community Development

Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Suburbs



32/32

9utlines a plan for !anaging Melbourne>s outward growt to acco!!odate around23),888 of 88,888 new dwellings o"er 28 years. ncludes a cange to te &rbanDrowt 6oundary, a Drowt $reas nfrastructure Carge, an align!ent for te5egional 5ail Lin7 and te future 9uter Metropolitan 5ingE- transport corridor andnew grasslands reser"es.

Documents

Review of Melb Strategic Planning Feb2012v02